Truth 101 Posted March 16, 2014 Author Posted March 16, 2014 Another thing is, is where is the proof that Lamanites and Nephites existed? They were a highly evolved civilization (for the time), yet there has been no evidence to prove those civilizations ever existed at all.
Truth 101 Posted March 16, 2014 Author Posted March 16, 2014 (edited) Sounds like a rounding error So you don't believe in a soul or spirit? Or that we have some sort of non-corporeal form? Cause I do. And from my point of view science in a way proves that we do. We can only account for what 99.9 percent of our bodies are comprised of. IMO the last piece of the puzzle is the human soul. Edited March 16, 2014 by Truth 101
Rob Osborn Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 While "sudden" is a relative term. On mortal human time scales 4.5 billions of years is a relatively long time. I'm just glad God lets me know what little I do know about how he did it. 4.5 billion years is pure conjecture.
Sleeper Cell Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 I am a very scientific person, and there are a few parallels to what the church believes and what I believe, such as the ability to transcend. What does being “a very scientific person” mean? Are you, yourself, a scientist or engineer? If so, what field?
jaxenro Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 So you don't believe in a soul or spirit? Or that we have some sort of non-corporeal form? Cause I do.No I fully believe in a soul I know for a fact the spirit lives on after death I have seen it. I just doubt it is measurable in physical terms
Truth 101 Posted March 16, 2014 Author Posted March 16, 2014 What does being “a very scientific person” mean? Are you, yourself, a scientist or engineer? If so, what field? In means that I look for logic and science in things. As far as fields: Pharmacology, chemistry and neurochemistry REMOVED, you sound like the guy from the movie "thank you for smoking" Little kid: My mom says smoking is bad! Nick Naylor: Ya? Is your mom a doctor or scientific researcher of some kind? Do not use language that will offend Mormons when you are on a Mormon board.
Truth 101 Posted March 16, 2014 Author Posted March 16, 2014 No I fully believe in a soul I know for a fact the spirit lives on after death I have seen it. I just doubt it is measurable in physical terms I agree, it isn't measurable in physical terms, at least not yet.
ERayR Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 Do you mean as in the second law of thermodynamics, which states, "order cannot come from disorder"? because when I talk about premordial soup I think of it all being the product of probability. But when you begin to include anywhere close to all the variables the probability becomes infinitesimally small. Just MNSHO from my observation.
Sleeper Cell Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 In means that I look for logic and science in things. As far as fields: Pharmacology, chemistry and neurochemistry ... , you sound like the guy from the movie "thank you for smoking" Little kid: My mom says smoking is bad! Nick Naylor: Ya? Is your mom a doctor or scientific researcher of some kind?Actually, I am also a guy who looks for logic and science in things. This includes looking for the logic in your calling yourself “a very scientific person.” In the context of your posts, it sounded like a vague “pseudo-credential” intended to give weight to your arguments. Despite your implication to the contrary, I do not believe that it is absolutely necessary to have any credentials to understand physics or even to correct a mistake made by a physicist. But if, in the course of propounding your understanding of physics, you imply that you have some sort of professional background or formal education in the field, it is hardly unreasonable to ask what it is. BTW, you might consider the possibility of using the edit function in your post. Perhaps “For Pete’s sake,” might be a better choice of words for this particular discussion board. Just a friendly suggestion. 1
Truth 101 Posted March 17, 2014 Author Posted March 17, 2014 But when you begin to include anywhere close to all the variables the probability becomes infinitesimally small. Just MNSHO from my observation. infinitesimally small in a universe that has 200 billion stars in an average galaxy multiplied by 100+ billion galaxies. Life had to win the lottery sometime, and I bet we're not the only ones that have.
Truth 101 Posted March 17, 2014 Author Posted March 17, 2014 (edited) Actually, I am also a guy who looks for logic and science in things. This includes looking for the logic in your calling yourself “a very scientific person.” In the context of your posts, it sounded like a vague “pseudo-credential” intended to give weight to your arguments. Despite your implication to the contrary, I do not believe that it is absolutely necessary to have any credentials to understand physics or even to correct a mistake made by a physicist. But if, in the course of propounding your understanding of physics, you imply that you have some sort of professional background or formal education in the field, it is hardly unreasonable to ask what it is. BTW, you might consider the possibility of using the edit function in your post. Perhaps “For Pete’s sake,” might be a better choice of words for this particular discussion board. Just a friendly suggestion. Well looks like you and I can agree on one thing. I don't believe credentials are absolutely necessary anywhere nowadays. We live in an age where we have all the information we need at our fingertips. And my arguments are what they are. I still don't know what you disagree with me about. Edited March 17, 2014 by Truth 101
Calm Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 (edited) We live in an age where we have all the information we need at our fingertips. The problem is determining what information is good and what isn't…knowledge is not just collecting of alleged facts, but the evaluation and contextualizing them as well. Unfortunately critical thinking is not something one can pick up solely from reading whatever one comes across. And I find it rather overly optimistic to assume that all the information we need is at our fingertips. I can't find for example the cure for cancer anywhere on the Internet…at least one that actually works. Edited March 17, 2014 by calmoriah 1
Truth 101 Posted March 17, 2014 Author Posted March 17, 2014 All the information we have available is at our fingertips. Feel better?
Coreyb Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 Do you mean as in the second law of thermodynamics, which states, "order cannot come from disorder"? because when I talk about premordial soup I think of it all being the product of probability.Yes, that's what I meant. Thanks . It still doesn't make much sense
Bikeemikey Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 (edited) And my arguments are what they are. I still don't know what you disagree with me about.Mainly the picture on your user profile.I'm willing to wager you run out of your fairly cookie cutter anti-mormon objections by the end of the month and we don't see you around much after that. Edited March 17, 2014 by Bikeemikey
Bikeemikey Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 All the information we have available is at our fingertips. Feel better?Stop calling me a cyborg with a USB "thumb" drive.
jaxenro Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 "I'm willing to wager you run out of your fairly cookie cutter anti-mormon objections by the end of the month and we don't see you around much after that." I'll take that wajer. I will always bet on the potential of any person to enlarge their condition. I think if we engage him with more than cookie cutter answers he is truly interested in learning
thesometimesaint Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 But when you begin to include anywhere close to all the variables the probability becomes infinitesimally small. Just MNSHO from my observation.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
thesometimesaint Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 All the information we have available is at our fingertips. Feel better? Not even close.
jaxenro Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 How about All the information we have available at our fingertips is at our fingertips? 1
thesometimesaint Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 How about All the information we have available at our fingertips is at our fingertips? Agreed.
Sleeper Cell Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 Well looks like you and I can agree on one thing. I don't believe credentials are absolutely necessary anywhere nowadays. We live in an age where we have all the information we need at our fingertips. And my arguments are what they are. I still don't know what you disagree with me about. In the context of your posts, calling yourself a “scientific person” sounded like a vague “pseudo-credential” intended to give weight to your arguments. If you believe that credentials are not necessary, why the need to imply that you have some? It is one thing to say that credentials are not absolutely necessary. It is quite another to say that expertise is not needed. As Cal pointed out, The problem is determining what information is good and what isn't…knowledge is not just collecting of alleged facts, but the evaluation and contextualizing them as well. Unfortunately critical thinking is not something one can pick up solely from reading whatever one comes across Prior to my first physics midterm, a classmate asked our professor for a pre-exam review. He responded: “Well all you have to know for this exam are Newton’s three laws. … And how to use them.” Of course, everybody cracked up, because memorizing the three laws is elementary school stuff , but knowing how to use them … let’s say it is not something that you can pick up merely by reading and study. For most of us, it requires a tremendous amount of hard work beyond reading and study. As my Dad often said, “you have to work the problems; then work some more problems; then when you are finished with those, you need to work even more problems.. For most of us it requires us to do stuff like spending an entire weekend trying to solve one (1) homework problem (and still not getting it right), but remain determined to come back for more, in order to gain the necessary competence in the field. Yes, you can be self-taught, but you still have to do far more work than merely reading about the subject. 1
thesometimesaint Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 In the context of your posts, calling yourself a “scientific person” sounded like a vague “pseudo-credential” intended to give weight to your arguments. If you believe that credentials are not necessary, why the need to imply that you have some? It is one thing to say that credentials are not absolutely necessary. It is quite another to say that expertise is not needed. As Cal pointed out, Prior to my first physics midterm, a classmate asked our professor for a pre-exam review. He responded: “Well all you have to know for this exam are Newton’s three laws. … And how to use them.” Of course, everybody cracked up, because memorizing the three laws is elementary school stuff , but knowing how to use them … let’s say it is not something that you can pick up merely by reading and study. For most of us, it requires a tremendous amount of hard work beyond reading and study. As my Dad often said, “you have to work the problems; then work some more problems; then when you are finished with those, you need to work even more problems.. For most of us it requires us to do stuff like spending an entire weekend trying to solve one (1) homework problem (and still not getting it right), but remain determined to come back for more, in order to gain the necessary competence in the field. Yes, you can be self-taught, but you still have to do far more work than merely reading about the subject. I've sent the last 44 years trying to figure out just one. Why do people do the things they do. I don't know as I am much closer to that goal than when I started. 1
Rob Osborn Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 infinitesimally small in a universe that has 200 billion stars in an average galaxy multiplied by 100+ billion galaxies. Life had to win the lottery sometime, and I bet we're not the only ones that have.Are you suggesting that because of all the planets, galaxies, etc, that the odds were in favor of life happening somewhere?
thesometimesaint Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 Personally I believe it is more than likely, but so far we have no confirming evidence for such. We keep looking however.
Recommended Posts